๐จ๐ณ
@Chinaembmanila's latest gaslighting of the 2016 Arbitral Award
Rear Admiral
@jaytaryela did what the ๐ต๐ญ
#Philippines has been doing consistently & effectively: he ๐ฆ shone a light on Chinese maritime aggression & called out unilateral actions in waters where China's legal basis remains exactly what it was in 2016 โ discredited.
The Embassy's response is worth reading carefully. Not because it makes a serious legal argument โ it doesn't really even try โ but because it is a near-perfect specimen of narrative inversion at the level of state communications.
In other words, it's rank gaslighting dressed up sloppily as if it were a legal case. And it turns on four inversions, each one answerable with actual treaty text & the tribunal's own case record.
โ๏ธ INVERSION #1:
#China "upheld" UNCLOS by refusing to participate in an UNCLOS proceeding.
The Philippines filed in January 2013 under UNCLOS Annex VII โ the Convention's own compulsory dispute-settlement procedure, which both parties accepted by joining the treaty. Annex VII Article 9 addresses exactly this situation: a party's absence "shall not constitute a bar to the proceedings," provided the tribunal satisfies itself on jurisdiction and the merits.
The Annex VII tribunal โ administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration as registry โ issued its jurisdiction award in October 2015 and its final award in July 2016.
China was free to choose non-participation as a litigation strategy. It was not free to turn that absence into a veto. Under UNCLOS Article 296, decisions by a tribunal with jurisdiction are final and must be complied with by the parties.
Calling the award "so-called" does not repeal it. โ
โ๏ธ INVERSION #2: "Historic rights" as a shield for present-day operations.
The Embassy again asserts that China enjoys "historic rights" in these waters. The 2016 tribunal addressed that claim directly: UNCLOS comprehensively allocates rights to maritime areas & any Chinese historic rights to resources were extinguished where incompatible with the EEZ regime established by the Convention. That was the point of UNCLOS.
Beijing is reviving โ as if uncontested โ the exact claim a properly constituted tribunal already rejected.
๐Repetition is not a legal argument.
โ๏ธ INVERSION #3: "Waters under China's jurisdiction" as a press-release conclusion.
The statement declares a Chinese research vessel's activities "fully justified and beyond reproach" because they occurred in waters under China's jurisdiction. That is the entire dispute compressed into a sentence and declared resolved in China's favor. ๐คท
๐ Notice what is missing: the vessel's name & coordinates; the specific feature Beijing claims generates the entitlement; the UNCLOS provision relied upon
Marine scientific research requires that coastal state's consent under UNCLOS Article 246. "Beyond reproach" is a slogan, not a defense.
โ๏ธ INVERSION #4: Transparency as the provocation.
The Embassy dismisses Tarriela's scrutiny โ and the Philippines' broader transparency work โ as "hype" manufactured by "pro-U.S., anti-China forces." (Insert the usual Ray Powell trope here.) This is the most predictable move in the playbook: when evidence is inconvenient, discredit the people pointing to it.
Beijing's position is that the documentation โ not the aggression โ is the problem.
๐ญ Gaslighting aims to exhaust โ to make defending reality so wearying that people just start accepting the lie.
There is indeed an information campaign underway in the
#WestPhilippineSea -- just not the one Beijing describes. It is the campaign to make lawful transparency look provocative โ and unlawful coercion look defensive.
Rear Admiral Tarriela and his colleagues refuse to be bullied in the dark. Neither should the rest of us.
It's ironic that Jay Tarriela talks about unilateral actions. It was the Philippines that illegally and unilaterally initiated the so-called arbitration, in deliberate violation of international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS). Citing this illegal arbitration as the basis for the Philippines' claims in the South China Sea is simply pointless.
First, China has on multiple occasions stated that China's Nanhai Zhudao (the South China Sea Islands) are entitled to territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf. In addition, China enjoys historic rights in the relevant waters in the South China Sea. Chinaโs maritime rights and interests are consistent with international law, including the UNCLOS. Scientific research conducted by Chinese vessels within waters under Chinaโs jurisdiction is fully justified and beyond reproach.
Second, the Philippines, in disregard of the consensus reached with China to settle disputes through negotiation and consultation, and in violation of its commitments under the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), unilaterally initiated the so-called arbitration by repackaging its claims. This constitutes an abuse of the dispute settlement mechanism under UNCLOS and undermines its integrity. China's non-acceptance of and non-participation in the arbitration is precisely an act of upholding the authority and dignity of UNCLOS. The arbitral tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and rendered an illegal award. China does not accept the illegal award, nor does it accept any policy or action premised upon it.
Third, the South China Sea has seen no developments lately that justify the level of hype. Certain pro-U.S., anti-China forces appear deeply anxious and are trying to distort and sensationalize the normal operations of a Chinese research vessel. Such attempts to manipulate public opinion are neither new nor effective; they have long been seen through. Maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea is the shared aspiration of the people of China and regional countries, and serves the common interests of all relevant parties. Any actions that run counter to this will prove futile and are doomed to fail.
โโDeputy Spokesperson of the Chinese Embassy Guo Wei